On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:27:54 -0800, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:12:50PM +0000, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:47:08AM -0500, Joshua Slive wrote: > > > +1, as before. > > > > > > From the users' perspective, sendfile results in unexplained corruption > > > or uninterpretable error messages pretty much any time a network > > > filesystem is used to host content (and random other times on win32). > > > > Judging by my inbox over the last year, similar behaviour on Linux with > > IPv6 is becoming more and more prevalant, as adoption ramps up. So > > a default of off would be a very great help there too. > > These seem like broken OSes and not a suitable justification to disable > sendfile. We should fix the code - perhaps by teaching APR not to enable the > sendfile-variants on these buggy platforms - not disable it entirely. For > those platforms that don't have bugs, disabling sendfile would be a ridiculous > performance hit. -1. -- justin
Is that "-1" a vote, or a veto against the idea? If the latter, please explain in at least a little detail how a technical solution can be implemented that will avoid some of the types of problems triggered by the use of sendfile. After a year or two that these issues have been known, the only thing that anybody truly knows how to do is to disable sendfile.
